What Would It Take for Hunters to Rebel Against the North American Wildlife Conservation Model?

[2rocky]

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been the backbone of game management in the U.S. for more than a century. For the most part, hunters have supported it because it’s built on the principles of regulated harvest, public ownership of wildlife, and funding through licenses/taxes. But history shows that no system is immune to rebellion—especially when laws or policies cross the line between management and restriction.

I’m curious to hear what others think: What kind of events or policy shifts would push the American hunting public to reject or openly defy the current system?

Some examples that come to mind:

Predator Reintroductions Gone Too Far
We’ve already seen tension with wolf and grizzly bear reintroductions/recoveries in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes. Ranchers, hunters, and rural residents often feel their voices get ignored when predator populations cut into ungulate herds or threaten livelihoods. If future reintroductions—say, mountain lions in the Midwest, jaguars in the Southwest, or wolves in Colorado—start to drastically reduce hunting opportunities, would more hunters take matters into their own hands?

Hunting Bans and Resistance
Imagine a statewide or national ban on hunting certain species (elk, deer, or even waterfowl) due to “climate concerns” or political pressure. We already know from history (Prohibition, Canadian gun registry, etc.) that bans without buy-in lead to widespread noncompliance. Would hunters continue to fill their freezers quietly even if tags or seasons disappeared?

Corner Crossing and “Victimless Crimes”
The corner-crossing debate in the West highlights how laws sometimes collide with public values. Technically, crossing from one piece of public land to another at a four-corner point without touching private ground is trespassing—but no land is damaged, and no true victim exists. Hunters already engage in small-scale defiance of rules like this (baiting laws, hunting over the limit, night hunting, etc.) when they feel the law doesn’t make sense. Could corner crossing become a flashpoint for larger acts of organized civil disobedience?

Other Everyday “Violations”
Many wildlife violations are already “victimless” in the eyes of hunters: picking up shed antlers out of season, shooting coyotes at night without the right permit, or keeping a found deer skull without a salvage tag. These aren’t the same as poaching trophy bulls, but they show a willingness to ignore laws when hunters feel the state overreaches.

So, the question is: What would it take for the hunting community as a whole—not just fringe individuals—to rebel against the North American Model? Would it be widespread predator reintroductions? A national ban on hunting a staple species? Continued criminalization of access to our public lands? Or something else?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Inability to easily obtain tags.

 

[Forkyfinder]

NR anger from lack of tags.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Inability to shoot a forked horn mule deer in MT on Thanksgiving weekend?

 

[SAJ-99]

Predator Reintroductions Gone Too Far - Don't think it will have an impact.
Hunting Bans and Resistance - Well yeah. No one is going to buy a license is there is no hunting season. (I also note that Prohibition was an Amendment to the Constitution, so there was some support for that).
Corner Crossing and “Victimless Crimes” and Other Everyday “Violations”- I really don't see the link in the argument.

My guess is probably more along the lines of an ever increased cost of a tag (or even getting a tag) rising while the chance of filling that tag goes down. Somewhere there is a tipping point on those two things. We already see leasing becoming the norm and this provides solid support for not changing seasons. If the chance of filling that tag on leased lands gets bad enough, the model will collapse.

 

[mevertsen]

Inability to easily obtain tags.

Welcome to Nevada.

25,000 tags, 80,000 people putting 425,000 applications in for those 25,000 tags.

 

[noharleyyet]

Welcome to Nevada.

25,000 tags, 80,000 people putting 425,000 applications in for those 25,000 tags.

& same price for everyone...everywhere

 

[mevertsen]

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been the backbone of game management in the U.S. for more than a century. For the most part, hunters have supported it because it’s built on the principles of regulated harvest, public ownership of wildlife, and funding through licenses/taxes. But history shows that no system is immune to rebellion—especially when laws or policies cross the line between management and restriction.

I’m curious to hear what others think: What kind of events or policy shifts would push the American hunting public to reject or openly defy the current system?

Some examples that come to mind:

Predator Reintroductions Gone Too Far
We’ve already seen tension with wolf and grizzly bear reintroductions/recoveries in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes. Ranchers, hunters, and rural residents often feel their voices get ignored when predator populations cut into ungulate herds or threaten livelihoods. If future reintroductions—say, mountain lions in the Midwest, jaguars in the Southwest, or wolves in Colorado—start to drastically reduce hunting opportunities, would more hunters take matters into their own hands?

Hunting Bans and Resistance
Imagine a statewide or national ban on hunting certain species (elk, deer, or even waterfowl) due to “climate concerns” or political pressure. We already know from history (Prohibition, Canadian gun registry, etc.) that bans without buy-in lead to widespread noncompliance. Would hunters continue to fill their freezers quietly even if tags or seasons disappeared?

Corner Crossing and “Victimless Crimes”
The corner-crossing debate in the West highlights how laws sometimes collide with public values. Technically, crossing from one piece of public land to another at a four-corner point without touching private ground is trespassing—but no land is damaged, and no true victim exists. Hunters already engage in small-scale defiance of rules like this (baiting laws, hunting over the limit, night hunting, etc.) when they feel the law doesn’t make sense. Could corner crossing become a flashpoint for larger acts of organized civil disobedience?

Other Everyday “Violations”
Many wildlife violations are already “victimless” in the eyes of hunters: picking up shed antlers out of season, shooting coyotes at night without the right permit, or keeping a found deer skull without a salvage tag. These aren’t the same as poaching trophy bulls, but they show a willingness to ignore laws when hunters feel the state overreaches.

So, the question is: What would it take for the hunting community as a whole—not just fringe individuals—to rebel against the North American Model? Would it be widespread predator reintroductions? A national ban on hunting a staple species? Continued criminalization of access to our public lands? Or something else?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I think we are very close. I am absolutely amazed that the ranchers in Sierra Valley, and parts of Colorado have not taken care of business, and called and said "come get your wolf."

It is becoming so challenging to get tags, in a lot of states, the whole idea has to change.

For example, odds this year for doe antelope in Nevada are going to be somewhere around 15 to one by my guess, going off last years stats, and tbe reductions this year because of a shift to youth tags.

You can also apply for a buck tag in the same drawing. And the buck draw happens first. So there is no loss in applying for doe tags, other than the app fee.

The flip side of that, is that I can't draw a doe tag, to go get a little meat variety in my home unit because it is getting so hard to draw doe tags. I have drawn 2 buck tags (rifle by pure luck with 2 points, had my waiting period, and muzzle loader this year with 1 point) since my last doe tag, and there is no waiting period for does, 3 years for bucks. Odds are I'll be able to apply for my buck tag again before I draw a doe tag.

The influencer stuff and available money to the average person is no where near when the model was first generated.

People were not going on multiple out of state hunts every year. People had big camps, and focused on bringing home meat.

Even on this forum, people get bummed out if they have only 1 or 2 tags, with several tags no being unheard of.

I think the draw systems, point systems, all need to be phased out by starting with no new points, and letting attrition and drawing out take its course.

Also, raise fees. ALOT. resident deer tags, minimum $100, elk, 300, antelope 200, sheep,goat, moose, 500 for Nevada.

Put that money to work on the ground

 

[mevertsen]

& same price for everyone...everywhere

I think you missed my point. That was how many applications were recieved this year for the draw. In Nevada.

 

[Stocker]

I’m always in for a rebellion!

I don’t know that it will be as much of a rebellion as a giving up. I have this conversation all the time with friends, hunting is becoming more and more of a rich man’s game especially where public land is scarce. Honestly in 15-20 years you won’t be able to hunt in my part of Nebraska if you don’t own land or have some kind of lease. Or you’ll pile into the tiny tracts of public and fight everyone else to see an animal. I’ve given up on points in Colorado, by the time I draw some of those tags I’ll be 6’ under, Wyoming isn’t that bad yet, but it’s getting worse. I’m realistically only 2-4 more point cycles from being too old to hunt depending on how the points it takes to draw inflate. I just hope I can scatter those tags out to do it every year for the next 35-40 years. I’m 36 btw.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Great topic, @2rocky! The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies has recently (2024) done their decadal review of the model. It's worth reading if you haven't had the chance yet. Can really help inform this discussion:

https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/1017/1943/1567/The_North_American_Model_Decadal_Review_6.2024.pdf

 

[Treeshark]

where public land is scarce.

This is the #1 threat to NAM. Loss of/loss of access to public land.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don’t know that it will be as much of a rebellion as a giving up.

The answer probably changes depending on where you live. But I'm with Stocker on this one. In my neck of the woods, the vast majority of hunters have never seen a legal buck during season. And as we pile more and more people into smaller and smaller seasons and restrictions, as a way to limit our impact while still providing that "opportunity", that trend is only exacerbated. I have no doubt I'm pretty close to throwing in the towel in WA already. My kids definitely struggle to see any value in it.

 

[TheTone]

Continued erosion for the general public to get tags while the wealthy and those with private lands get more and more opportunities

 

[noharleyyet]

I think you missed my point. That was how many applications were recieved this year for the draw. In Nevada.

I got your point.

 

[Dougfirtree]

The first tenet of the NAM is that wildlife resources are a public trust. The third is that allocation of those resources is by law. When so much of the landscape is privately owned and so much of the power of law is controlled by the people who own the land, I might argue that the model is already broken in many places. I recognize the good that has come from the NAM. It feels dangerous to abandon it (to me), but some rebellion might not be the worst thing..

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

I’m always in for a rebellion!

I don’t know that it will be as much of a rebellion as a giving up. I have this conversation all the time with friends, hunting is becoming more and more of a rich man’s game especially where public land is scarce. Honestly in 15-20 years you won’t be able to hunt in my part of Nebraska if you don’t own land or have some kind of lease. Or you’ll pile into the tiny tracts of public and fight everyone else to see an animal. I’ve given up on points in Colorado, by the time I draw some of those tags I’ll be 6’ under, Wyoming isn’t that bad yet, but it’s getting worse. I’m realistically only 2-4 more point cycles from being too old to hunt depending on how the points it takes to draw inflate. I just hope I can scatter those tags out to do it every year for the next 35-40 years. I’m 36 btw.

Well said. I'm twice your age so I'm screwed. R3 destroyed my hunting. Too many people competing for too few tags. There never was enough tags to invite the world to hunt.

 

[elkduds]

Great topic, @2rocky! The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies has recently (2024) done their decadal review of the model. It's worth reading if you haven't had the chance yet. Can really help inform this discussion:

https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/1017/1943/1567/The_North_American_Model_Decadal_Review_6.2024.pdf

Here are the recommendations from this document and conference.

Regardless of future work associated with the potential development of a“Continental Conservation Policy,” the seven elements of the North AmericanModel require on-going discussion and strengthening. In some cases, thismay inform policy changes including the strengthening of the legalinstitutions that enable wildlife conservation.Within the Association, this is best accomplished via the work of itscommittees. To that end, the following recommendations and focal areasare offered for consideration by the Association’s leaders:

THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL: DECADAL REVIEW (2024) 52APPENDIX—RECOMMENDATIONSFOR AFWA

The public trust doctrine is a central underpinning of state andprovincial fish and wildlife agency authorities and mandates. Whatactions need to be taken to strengthen those authorities andmandates? What threats must be addressed?

While markets for game species, shorebirds, and songbirds havebeen eliminated, other markets continue, some unlawfully. Forexample, there is a worldwide market for reptiles leading topopulation-level declines in several species, notably turtles. Existinglawful markets often serve important conservation purposes, suchas the management of furbearers. New markets might help to meetcontemporary challenges associated with wildlife population1.
overabundance. A comprehensive assessment of existing wildlifemarkets should be completed to identify: (a) conditions when suchmarkets serve a conservation purpose versus conditions that harmwildlife populations and habitat, and (b) when establishing newmarkets can meet contemporary management needs.

The use and enjoyment of wildlife is governed by laws andregulations. The authority and influence of state and provincial fishand wildlife agencies needs to be protected, if not strengthened, toensure that those laws and regulations meet contemporary needs.To that end, the Association should lead efforts to identify threatsto state and provincial authorities, and to develop strategies toameliorate those threats.

Among the most persistent debates in contemporary society iswhen it is appropriate, and under what conditions, to allow thelawful killing of wildlife via hunting and trapping. The principle of“legitimate purpose” is not defined because it is plastic, based ontime and place, and changes in societal values. Yet, conversationsabout the ethics of take—the ethics of fair chase—must beprominent since such ethical matters animate and mobilize a widedivergency of viewpoints. Moreover, technological advancesthreaten to diminish the notion of fair chase for some, therebyundermining public support for regulated take. The Associationshould enable ongoing discussions about these matters.

The Migratory Bird Treaty, the Convention on the InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and otherinternational arrangements strengthen worldwide conservationprograms. The Association must continue active engagement at theinternational level to ensure that the interests of North Americanfish and wildlife agencies are met.

Science underpins the work of state and provincial fish and wildlifeagencies. As we learned through this comprehensive examination ofthe Model, a compelling case has been made to enable theinclusion of indigenous knowledge as a form of science (albeit notWestern science) in decision-making concerning the use of fish andwildlife. The Association should facilitate an ongoing conversationabout “traditional ecological knowledge” (TEK). Specifically, theAssociation should partner with The Wildlife Society and theAmerican Fisheries Society to establish sensible policies regardingthe publication of journal articles that use TEK as a basis forresearch. Additionally, the Association’s Knowledge Hub shouldserve as a resource to showcase how state and provincial agenciesuse TEK in decision-making that enables collaborative managementwith indigenous authorities.

The conventional language used for the seventh principle of theNorth American Model is “Democracy of hunting is standard.” Thisprinciple should be expanded to include all uses of fish and wildlife,regardless of whether hunting or trapping is involved. This isconsistent with the Association’s Relevancy Roadmap, and stronglyaligns with the mission, purpose, and authorities of state andprovincial fish and wildlife agencies.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Well said. I'm twice your age so I'm screwed. R3 destroyed my hunting. Too many people competing for too few tags. There never was enough tags are now too many people to invite the world to hunt western big game.

Or maybe ^

Maybe both..

 

[elkduds]

Great topic, @2rocky! The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies has recently (2024) done their decadal review of the model. It's worth reading if you haven't had the chance yet. Can really help inform this discussion:

https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/1017/1943/1567/The_North_American_Model_Decadal_Review_6.2024.pdf

Some thoughts after reading this publication: Indigenous beliefs, terms and perceptions are often strikingly different than those put forward by us newcomers. A move toward a broader definition of wildlife and habitat is considered for the model.

The maintenance and continued relevance of the NAM is a serious, ongoing and contentious process.

Science is no longer an absolute foundation for these principles, having been compromised by the politics of fake news and facts vs. truth, leaving giant loopholes to be exploited at the expense of animals in the public trust.

Hunters and anglers are no longer the sole standard-bearers of wildlife conservation. Acting as if diminishes the strength of NAM among nonhunting stakeholders.

The vast majority of wildlife stakeholders have no idea what NAM is, it's history or purpose, why it matters. Umlimited opportunity to educate people about it.